{
  "id": 5016905,
  "name": "S. H. Wilbur v. W. C. Turner",
  "name_abbreviation": "Wilbur v. Turner",
  "decision_date": "1891-01-24",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "526",
  "last_page": "527",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "39 Ill. App. 526"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 163,
    "char_count": 1821,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.523,
    "sha256": "cb3faf571f3c4e342962b20395c5e06aacc0a08184ca212eab19c528911d6a8c",
    "simhash": "1:5c2d98f1d5f10224",
    "word_count": 308
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:45:34.976789+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "S. H. Wilbur v. W. C. Turner."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nAppellee was the owner of two horses which one Charles H. Tipton, a constable, took away from his premises, and appellee never saw them again. Ho legal justification was offered for such taking. Appellant was sued for having aided Tipton in this wrong done to appellee, and upon the trial a jury returned a verdict against appellant for $325, upon which judgment was rendered. The whole controversy was as to whether appellant by his acts in the premises had jnade himself liable to appellee for the unlawful taking. We have carefully read the evidence and think it clearly warranted the verdict.\nAppellant criticizes appellee\u2019s instructions because the words, \u201c aided, abetted and assisted,\u201d as used in the instructions, were not qualified by the court, and referring to eertain facts proved, asks; \u201cDo such acts constitute \u201caid\u201d in a legal sense, to Tipton, in the doing of the alleged tort %35\n'Whether they did or not was a question of fact for the jury.\nWe think the objection untenable and the judgment of the Circuit Court will be affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed,",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. Conkling & Grout and J. C. Snigg, for appellant.",
      "Messrs. Patton & Hamilton, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "S. H. Wilbur v. W. C. Turner.\nPractice\u2014Tort of Constable\u2014Aiding Unlawful Act by.\n1. Whether or not certain facts in evidence in a given case constituted \u201c aid \u201d in a legal sense, to a person in the doing of an alleged tort, is for the jury to decide.\n2. In an action brought to recover from the defendant for aiding a constable in wrongfully removing personal property of the plaintiff, the same never having been returned, this court declines, in view of the evidence, to interfere with the judgment in his behalf.\n[Opinion filed January 24, 1891.]\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Sangamon County; the Hon. J. A. Cbeighton, Judge, presiding.\nMessrs. Conkling & Grout and J. C. Snigg, for appellant.\nMessrs. Patton & Hamilton, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0526-01",
  "first_page_order": 522,
  "last_page_order": 523
}